RHH: (How) do we distinguish between the voice of the artist and the persona?

In some manner or another, the artist is always speaking. Every song that an artist writes is a manifestation of their thoughts and being in some way and you can learn something of them from it. I think from the point of view of a critic it isn't an inaccurate statement to say one listens to music to draw a portrait of the artist behind--less so in music but certainly in literature.

The artist is both a silhouette one builds from the material they release and a spectacle through which one views their music. Personas are not really much different from the music which paints them, both pieces produced by the same architect.

When I say artist I don't necessarily mean a holistic understanding of the person however, but really only as much of the person that colors their music. As an example, I've seen Kno be a self-righteous and dismissive asshole, but that part of him is practically nonexistent in his solo album or his work with Cunninlynguists, so it's not important in particular to how I might describe him in a musically critical context.

The voice of an alter ego in itself I don't think necessarily has value, but really only as a piece of a greater whole: a song. Songs are what tell about artists, and a persona is something that factors into the information that a song as a whole holds. Like colors mixed in a palette, the original elements are no longer distinguishable and the new shade holds different feeling and connotation than if you had painted each of the composing colors separately on canvas.

I think I didn't really answer the question directly so I'm also going to add this, which I think I should've said from the beginning: Although the artist may speak from his own voice, it's important to note that it's not so different from a persona because they are unreliable narrators. One *extracts* information on their selves from self-characterizations rather than builds using them as construction blocks. Truth is garnered from situation and context; words and literal meaning are the porters for greater understanding gathered from the vicinage.

Sorry if any of this is unclear--I'm kind of ironing my thoughts out at the same time as writing the answer.

This is a really good observation...with a very simple answer....

We should never take it upon ourselves to distinguished between the reality or the fantasy of these entertainers based on their material alone...

We should however automatically assume everything being sung is pure entertainment unless clarified by action or tangible evidence...That responsibility should fall on the listener...so if you didn't see or know for a fact that it has happened or even came close to it....then you should assume its just a persona used to reach further into their own imagination....

as far as Marshall Mathers goes....much of the song was about him and his anger....the dead dog was something that should of been taken as satirical from the jump...it was just a way to voice his mood...deep anger...which was only to be taken at a symbolic level....not literal....as listens we have to understand the difference between things that sound literal and things that are said for entertainment....If the artist isn't engaged in such activity...then chock it up there to entertainment...i can relate to such because i do the same as a artist....

Where do we draw the line? Well did you see him do it? Did you see him give you any idea that he would do it? If its all on a record then thats what it is....just a record....What you see outside of the booth is what they are really all about....it also reduces confusion....can't confuse reality and facts....but speculation and music interpretation can always be debated on....

I'm most in agreement with what you said about how artists aren't being themselves in their lyrics, but they are taking the point of view of a persona, which is often based on their real lives. But I feel like the issue with us thinking that is that artists can say whatever bad thing they want in their lyrics, and when criticized for what they say, they can just get away with it by saying it was an "alter ego" speaking, not them. So basically, I'm saying that we shouldn't take Asap Rocky's threats lightly just because he can blame it on an alter ego, since he is saying the words himself. However, when someone is clearly speaking from the point of view of someone different than their normal persona (i.e. Slim Shady, Dr. Octagon, Viktor Vaughn, Redford Stevens, etc.), it is a different situation and should be taken less seriously. I'm not saying that we should hate Asap Rocky or that what he did was bad, I'm just saying that you shouldn't just be allowed to say whatever you want and get away with it due to the fact that alter egos exist. haha i didn't really explain myself well but whatever

Well, speaking for myself, I consider someone morally responsible for what they are putting out into the world. I'm not going to listen to someone call someone names of any kind and then think it wasn't really him. Artists especially are accountable for their work.

Their point of view.

a

Im not reading all that